The Legalization of Marijuana in the United States

But there is a good chance that the status quo people just haven't thought the issues through. No such possibility for active MJ only people.

True enough. I think our drug laws need to be completely wiped (including prescription drug laws) and we need to start over from scratch with a libertarian and scientific bent. I mean, the current ones makes absolutely no sense. The current schedule 1 criteria are:

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Booze and cigs break all of those and stuff like MJ, heroin, cocaine and LSD all have medical uses and neither MJ or LSD have a high potential for abuse given that they aren't physically addictive and MJ specifically does not meet any of the criteria.

I personally believe everything should be legal unless or until it can be demonstrated that it is a detriment to society at large (and also is not a basic right) for it to stay legal.

Sure - no arguments from me there. So why just focus on marijuana, instead of all currently illegal drugs?

It's a step. One step at a time. Personally I'm in favor of legalizing the adult, responsible use of all soft drugs (weed, shrooms, LSD, ecstasy,etc) and then decriminalizing harder drugs and treating them like the public health situation that they actually are. Don't give addicts criminal records unless they commit other crimes to feed their habit, but help them get clean, put them on the road to recovery. Giving a recovering (or a potentially recovering) addict a felony on their record is nearly a sure fire way to insure they cannot reenter society and become a contributing member.

Also to answer your question more directly, the OP is about marijuana legalization as opposed to ending the war on drugs as we know because I specifically wanted to discuss the 3 legalization initiatives, the Washington state one in particular.

The federal government could also prosecute growers or retailers licensed under the law, seize Washington's new marijuana revenues as proceeds of illicit drug deals, or withhold money from the state.

I have always thought about this being a somewhat frightful consequence of legalization (though the devil in me says the whole thing would be interesting to witness). Would the Feds sue the state? Do they have the power to seize the money the state has? Part of me thinks this wouldn't happen as I feel even those against legalization would probably be upset watching the Federal government seize a large portion of state's funds.

The WoD will effectively die the death it deserves after the first couple of states legalize thc. What has largely kept it going at the Federal level is grants to the states to fund special units that do nothing but drug prohibition and the DEA, and the ONDCP which is essentially a taxpayer funded propaganda office that does nothing but advertise and lobby against legalization/decrim/liberalization efforts. Without police officers across the US actively enforcing state drug laws on users and small time dealers, the entire thing dies. There are 700,000 thc possession arrests each year, almost all of them are misdemeanors or less. Take that away and the drug war is only going to be fought on the border and occasionally in the banking system. You take the heart of it right out. There will be no more fear of persecution among casual users and if you add in legislation at the state level that prohibits state law enforcement from accepting federal grants for drug prohibition enforcement, then unless the Federal government plans to add a 100,000 DEA agents to be the Federal Morality Police, the drug war is over.

I'm ok with whatever they do, as long as stoner doesn't become a protected class. Not that I'd be in a hurry to add to the list of things people smoke.

I'd rather not see much provisions allowing grow your own, and I also think there probably should be a metric for legal potency. Pot smoke would hopefully be considered a public nuisance, like noise.

Also, fines for unauthorized sales should be very punitive. In the end, black market sellers will still be out there dodging taxes, and we'd still need to treat them at least as badly as the IRS would treat you if you willfully committed tax fraud.

Don't forget the most basic reason: because there's no good reason for it to be illegal.

Which doesn't mean that "smokes pot" should become a protected class for employment discrimination.

If there's no good reason for it to be illegal, why should it matter if someone does it on their time off? Barring fields in which one must operate heavy equipment, drive a taxi, fly a plane, etc, an employer should not be able to dictate whatever legal (at this hypothetical future point) activities an employee wishes to partake in, in a responsible manner, on their time off. In other words, employers shouldn't own their employees' private lives.

While I actually don't think it rises to the level of protected class, from a rational standpoint, I don't see smoking pot as any different than someone who drinks. (well, technically, I do...but let's call them equivalent for now)

Right now, companies can deny you employment for being a smoker. They can fire you for being drunk on the job. They can fire you for a completely unrelated felonious event.

But nobody tests for smoking tobacco, other than asking. Nobody tests for alcohol.

Don't forget the most basic reason: because there's no good reason for it to be illegal.

Which doesn't mean that "smokes pot" should become a protected class for employment discrimination.

If there's no good reason for it to be illegal, why should it matter if someone does it on their time off? Barring fields in which one must operate heavy equipment, drive a taxi, fly a plane, etc, an employer should not be able to dictate whatever legal (at this hypothetical future point) activities an employee wishes to partake in, in a responsible manner, on their time off. In other words, employers shouldn't own their employees' private lives.

This is completely asinine. First off, there's an unbelievably massive gulf between "decriminalized for recreational use in one state" and "protected class." Talk about getting ahead of ourselves. But beyond that, smoking pot a fucking recreational activity, not a fundamental characteristic of a person. Are we going to make alcoholics a protected class? Are we going to make smokers a protected class? What about video gamers, sports fans, joggers and dog lovers?

There are plenty of things that are illegal at the federal level, but no one is going to deny you employment for fishing without a license. I'm generally in favor of a blanket law that says that employers can't invade your private life unless it impacts that particular job function.

The only reason employers use drug tests at all is to marginalize marijuana smokers. Most hard drugs don't stay in your system that long. Expect the drug testing industry which has some very unsavory ties to the cult abusive treatment industry (The Seed, Straight, etc) to fight hard for employers rights to dictate your private behavior at home even if it is legal.

If the argument is that it is ok to discriminate based on behavior, then employers are free to discriminate against single people or married people or homosexuals not because of their status but on the pretense that their particular behavior in the bedroom or violates their employer's sense of morality. Religious belief is also a choice btw. Only skin color, gender, national origin, sexual orientation (but not promiscuity or relationship status) is actually something that can't be changed. If my boss can demand I don't use a legal recreational substance, they can demand I convert to Christianity or Islam.

If the argument is that it is ok to discriminate based on behavior, then employers are free to discriminate against single people or married people or homosexuals not because of their status but on the pretense that their particular behavior in the bedroom or violates their employer's sense of morality. Religious belief is also a choice btw. Only skin color, gender, national origin, sexual orientation (but not promiscuity or relationship status) is actually something that can't be changed. If my boss can demand I don't use a legal recreational substance, they can demand I convert to Christianity or Islam.

Religious belief always throws a monkeywrench into the whole "protected class" logical framework, but I think it comes down to this:

The overwhelmingly vast majority of religious adherents were born into their faith. If it weren't for that sort of "born in" element, we wouldn't be able to form these tribes around it and we wouldn't be able to blindly persecute members of the tribe for it, and so we wouldn't require the protection.

Without the born-in aspect, religion is basically just a philosophical guidance crossed with superstition. Nobody in the room advocates that we protect people because they ascribe to some philosophy like "utilitarian" or "nihilist". Likewise, nobody advocates that we protect generic forms of superstition, like belief in ghosts or UFOs.

Don't forget the most basic reason: because there's no good reason for it to be illegal.

Which doesn't mean that "smokes pot" should become a protected class for employment discrimination.

If there's no good reason for it to be illegal, why should it matter if someone does it on their time off? Barring fields in which one must operate heavy equipment, drive a taxi, fly a plane, etc, an employer should not be able to dictate whatever legal (at this hypothetical future point) activities an employee wishes to partake in, in a responsible manner, on their time off. In other words, employers shouldn't own their employees' private lives.

This is completely asinine. First off, there's an unbelievably massive gulf between "decriminalized for recreational use in one state" and "protected class." Talk about getting ahead of ourselves. But beyond that, smoking pot a fucking recreational activity, not a fundamental characteristic of a person. Are we going to make alcoholics a protected class? Are we going to make smokers a protected class? What about video gamers, sports fans, joggers and dog lovers?

There is no reason this should be a question.

For the record, I don't believe it should be considered on par with being black or in a wheelchair or female or whatever. I don't know that it legally needs to be a "Protected Class" just like being able to go home and drink a beer after working doesn't. They're no brainers. If the activity is legal and the person isn't actually high on the job then employers shouldn't have the right to fire you for doing it, or not-hire you for doing it. (Again, this is in the hypothetical future in which cannabis is legal. If it's legal to do something in the state in which you live, please tell me why you shouldn't be able to responsibly do it without fear of being fired.

If the argument is that it is ok to discriminate based on behavior, then employers are free to discriminate against single people or married people or homosexuals not because of their status but on the pretense that their particular behavior in the bedroom or violates their employer's sense of morality. Religious belief is also a choice btw. Only skin color, gender, national origin, sexual orientation (but not promiscuity or relationship status) is actually something that can't be changed. If my boss can demand I don't use a legal recreational substance, they can demand I convert to Christianity or Islam.

Religious belief always throws a monkeywrench into the whole "protected class" logical framework, but I think it comes down to this:

The overwhelmingly vast majority of religious adherents were born into their faith. If it weren't for that sort of "born in" element, we wouldn't be able to form these tribes around it and we wouldn't be able to blindly persecute members of the tribe for it, and so we wouldn't require the protection.

Without the born-in aspect, religion is basically just a philosophical guidance crossed with superstition. Nobody in the room advocates that we protect people because they ascribe to some philosophy like "utilitarian" or "nihilist". Likewise, nobody advocates that we protect generic forms of superstition, like belief in ghosts or UFOs.

It's flimsy, but those are the cards we've been dealt.

I see what you're saying and I agree completely, but I would politely request that we not steer this thread toward a discussion of religion.

For the record, I don't believe it should be considered on par with being black or in a wheelchair or female or whatever. I don't know that it legally needs to be a "Protected Class" just like being able to go home and drink a beer after working doesn't. They're no brainers. If the activity is legal and the person isn't actually high on the job then employers shouldn't have the right to fire you for doing it, or not-hire you for doing it. (Again, this is in the hypothetical future in which cannabis is legal. If it's legal to do something in the state in which you live, please tell me why you shouldn't be able to responsibly do it without fear of being fired.

a few years ago my job announced that there would be piss tests for anyone who interacts with customers ... but they never went through with it and there were no further announcements. apparently corporate didn't understand the prevalence of pot smoking among 20-something low-paid helpdesk workers until they had a meeting where all the supervisors pointed out that they'd have to fire half the helpdesk and wouldn't be able to find and train replacements fast enough.

What is the decay time/effect in body time for marijuana as compared to tobacco/alcohol?

I was under the impression that it lasted much longer and had components that were stored in fat/released over time.

It is stored in your fat but just enough to detect it in your bloodstream, but not enough to actually keep you high after the effect wears off after a few hours. Getting drunk certainly impairs you longer and worse than smoking weed.

My basic point is that the criteria we use to determine a protected class in the context of employment or public accommodation discrimination in civil rights law is arbitrary and that if we are trying to espouse a general principle, it can't just be things you can't change about yourself or even things that don't impact your job (Can't work on the sabbath? You're fired!!!) or anything legal, but probably a combination of those principals that results in some explicit protected groups and probably quite a lot of implied subgroups, which is basically what we have now.

For the record, I don't believe it should be considered on par with being black or in a wheelchair or female or whatever. I don't know that it legally needs to be a "Protected Class" just like being able to go home and drink a beer after working doesn't. They're no brainers. If the activity is legal and the person isn't actually high on the job then employers shouldn't have the right to fire you for doing it, or not-hire you for doing it. (Again, this is in the hypothetical future in which cannabis is legal. If it's legal to do something in the state in which you live, please tell me why you shouldn't be able to responsibly do it without fear of being fired.

The activity doesn't have to be illegal for me to fire you for it, or not hire you for it. I could fire you tomorrow because I felt like it, or because I thought you went home and chugged a 6 pack. Doesn't really matter. There's no reason to add to the already-existing protected classes.

It's a different argument what happens if you try to limit what employers can do.

For the record, I don't believe it should be considered on par with being black or in a wheelchair or female or whatever. I don't know that it legally needs to be a "Protected Class" just like being able to go home and drink a beer after working doesn't. They're no brainers. If the activity is legal and the person isn't actually high on the job then employers shouldn't have the right to fire you for doing it, or not-hire you for doing it. (Again, this is in the hypothetical future in which cannabis is legal. If it's legal to do something in the state in which you live, please tell me why you shouldn't be able to responsibly do it without fear of being fired.

The activity doesn't have to be illegal for me to fire you for it, or not hire you for it. I could fire you tomorrow because I felt like it, or because I thought you went home and chugged a 6 pack. Doesn't really matter. There's no reason to add to the already-existing protected classes.

It's a different argument what happens if you try to limit what employers can do.

It's not quite apples to apples, man. Sure, someone can be fired for any reason, but I doubt you could find a statistically significant amount of people who actually were fired for going home and chugging a sixpack. On the other hand, do a simple google search for people with legal licenses and legal prescriptions for medical marijuana being fired from their jobs for the sole reason of failing a random drug test. So even though they were entirely within the law of the state in which they reside, they got fired. There are tons of instances of this happening.

While I actually don't think it rises to the level of protected class, from a rational standpoint, I don't see smoking pot as any different than someone who drinks. (well, technically, I do...but let's call them equivalent for now)

Right now, companies can deny you employment for being a smoker. They can fire you for being drunk on the job. They can fire you for a completely unrelated felonious event.

But nobody tests for smoking tobacco, other than asking. Nobody tests for alcohol.

i wish the US would mandate a harmless chemical be added booze that can be tested for that lasts the same duration thc can be detected. bet you'd see a huge uproar on that mess (not that any company would test for THAT chemical; they just hate MJ).

i'm all for legalizing it all but it won't happen. cute of them to keep trying though.

If your employer clearly states things that can get you terminated, and then you go ahead and do them anyway, I don't have a lot of sympathy for your plight. Anyone here can get a prescription for medical marijuana, so it's not like folks being fired for taking insulin.

Diagnosed medical conditions do have protection here, along with a pretty good state mandated disability plan. Also, the FMLA protects your job for at least 3 months if you have a diagnosed condition. Don't confuse folks with a medically diagnosed condition with your desire to get baked.

What is the decay time/effect in body time for marijuana as compared to tobacco/alcohol?

I was under the impression that it lasted much longer and had components that were stored in fat/released over time.

Drug testing looks for metabolites. THC is lipid-soluble with slow elimination time. you can be pissing out THC metabolites for long after the psychoactive effects have worn off.

Quote:

i wish the US would mandate a harmless chemical be added booze that can be tested for that lasts the same duration thc can be detected.

physically impossible. nice try, though.

i'd actually like alcohol to be illegal again. but the one thing the US is excellent at is being hypocritical so yeah. wonder what would happen if prohibition came back.. it was a much different time back then with a much less militarized police. i think folks would grumble and then get over it. a few generations would think of it the same as all illegal drugs.

If your employer clearly states things that can get you terminated, and then you go ahead and do them anyway, I don't have a lot of sympathy for your plight. Anyone here can get a prescription for medical marijuana, so it's not like folks being fired for taking insulin.

Diagnosed medical conditions do have protection here, along with a pretty good state mandated disability plan. Also, the FMLA protects your job for at least 3 months if you have a diagnosed condition. Don't confuse folks with a medically diagnosed condition with your desire to get baked.

And I'm saying the law needs to be changed so that employers can't test for things that have nothing to do with the job and that are legal.

And no, as far as I'm aware, diagnosed medical conditions are not protected. You can have been diagnosed with chronic anxiety, have a license and prescription for marijuana, get piss-tested at your job, and then be fired even though you are within the laws of your state. Every time that I'm aware of that it has been taken to court the courts have sided against the employee.

at least I have, you know, history to back me up. we tried it, it was a disaster, and "you'd like" to do it again.

n.b. I'm not here to amuse you.

Quote:

so i take it your stance is we missed the window on weed? been too long and folks can't adjust? that's my thinking. or since you've added 0 to the conversation, i assume you have no opinion.

you know, I've really got to wonder. this place loves to administer self-love because of its "quality of debate," but if what you've posted is representative of that "quality of debate" then, well... holy shit.

What is the decay time/effect in body time for marijuana as compared to tobacco/alcohol?

I was under the impression that it lasted much longer and had components that were stored in fat/released over time.

It is stored in your fat but just enough to detect it in your bloodstream, but not enough to actually keep you high after the effect wears off after a few hours. Getting drunk certainly impairs you longer and worse than smoking weed.

The non-psychoactive byproducts are stored in body fat, and that's actually what current urine testing detects. Not that you're stoned at the time of the test, but rather that you were at some point in the past. Your employer becomes Big Brother wrt off the job behavior, particularly for regular users.

If some non-invasive test for actual THC were developed, or if pot smokers could demand/ submit to a THC blood test in lieu of all the other testing methods, then testing would reveal who was actually stoned at the time & who was not... which isn't the real point of testing for marijuana, anyway...

Absolutely. It's also class warfare of sorts, given that legislators, executives, judges, BoD members, investors & the ownership class in general are never drug or alcohol tested...

The whole thing is part & parcel of our massive hypocrisy wrt intoxicants in general. I've often joked that legislators & judges should be subjected to random breathalyzers after lunch, and also about the fact that thousands of technically illegal drivers are flagged out of the Broncos' parking lot after the game while some guy is getting busted for the same thing by a county mountie on a dirt road somewhere outside of Eads. It's also quite possible to pass drug tests while stoned out of one's mind if using the proper drugs, legal or not.

Seriously, in other countries you pretty much have to set off a bomb to get a visit from the police. A lot of places in the US, a loud party in your own home, with half an acre between you and the next house has the suburban swat team coming by to check how old people are.

The laws against cannabis and the imprisonment of its users are the problems.

This might not be the problem you think it is.

Very few people are incarcerating for cannabis use. What they're incarcerated for is what they admit when they're caught with marijuana (which the police don't really care about).

The way it works is that a cop pulls you over for, say, a busted tail light. Then he smells marijuana and notices a butt in the ashtray. So he searches the car and questions you. He hauls you down to the station and tosses you in an interrogation room. At which point someone offers you 'a deal'.

Maybe its rat out your friends. Maybe it's cop to a crime they 'know' you committed. In any case, they're just using the marijuana as a path to bypass the rules of evidence.

But when you actually get to prison, it probably won't be on marijuana charges (unless you needed a tractor-trailer to store your stash).

The laws against cannabis and the imprisonment of its users are the problems.

This might not be the problem you think it is.

Very few people are incarcerating for cannabis use. What they're incarcerated for is what they admit when they're caught with marijuana (which the police don't really care about).

The way it works is that a cop pulls you over for, say, a busted tail light. Then he smells marijuana and notices a butt in the ashtray. So he searches the car and questions you. He hauls you down to the station and tosses you in an interrogation room. At which point someone offers you 'a deal'.

Maybe its rat out your friends. Maybe it's cop to a crime they 'know' you committed. In any case, they're just using the marijuana as a path to bypass the rules of evidence.

But when you actually get to prison, it probably won't be on marijuana charges (unless you needed a tractor-trailer to store your stash).

Well, I'm pretty sure more people are arrested and jailed due to marijuana offenses than any other drug out there. I could be wrong, but if so, it's a good first target for decriminalization/legalization.

But if such conservative states as California and Nevada can't pass measures to legalize weed, I'm not sure Oregon can.